Home› A Moving Train

Misleading Headlines

EdsonNascimentoEdsonNascimento Posts: 5,522
edited December 2012 in A Moving Train
What's new?

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy ... -1C7488578

The strength in the count of jobs created was offset somewhat by a drop in the size of the workforce as people gave up looking, which does not bode well for the economy. The drop in the jobless rate was largely due to the shrinkage in the labor force count.


I love how that is buried and rationlized away. We are in worse shape, but let's keep trumpeting the lower unemployment number. There are FEWER people working every day in this country, and we keep headlining what has become an even more meaningless statistic. We are encouraging people to not even bother looking for work. This path is not sustainable. Ask David Dinkins.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O8jsxj9Dqo
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,190
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    What's new?

    http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy ... -1C7488578

    The strength in the count of jobs created was offset somewhat by a drop in the size of the workforce as people gave up looking, which does not bode well for the economy. The drop in the jobless rate was largely due to the shrinkage in the labor force count.


    I love how that is buried and rationlized away. We are in worse shape, but let's keep trumpeting the lower unemployment number. There are FEWER people working every day in this country, and we keep headlining what has become an even more meaningless statistic. We are encouraging people to not even bother looking for work. This path is not sustainable. Ask David Dinkins.

    We're not in worse shape because 176,000 jobs were added. If you look at the labor force participation rate over the year, it hasn't changed much overall. For example, in October, the participation rate was higher.

    What do you mean we are encouraging people to not even bother looking for work? If anything, people's pessimistic outlook on the economy keeps people from looking for work. When they see a story that 176,000 jobs were created, that encourages people to look for work.
  • dancepartnerdancepartner Posts: 324
    If I recollect correctly, there's always a short burst of jobs thru the holiday season. the real test will be come January.
  • EdsonNascimentoEdsonNascimento Posts: 5,522
    Go Beavers wrote:
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    What's new?

    http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy ... -1C7488578

    The strength in the count of jobs created was offset somewhat by a drop in the size of the workforce as people gave up looking, which does not bode well for the economy. The drop in the jobless rate was largely due to the shrinkage in the labor force count.


    I love how that is buried and rationlized away. We are in worse shape, but let's keep trumpeting the lower unemployment number. There are FEWER people working every day in this country, and we keep headlining what has become an even more meaningless statistic. We are encouraging people to not even bother looking for work. This path is not sustainable. Ask David Dinkins.

    We're not in worse shape because 176,000 jobs were added. If you look at the labor force participation rate over the year, it hasn't changed much overall. For example, in October, the participation rate was higher.

    What do you mean we are encouraging people to not even bother looking for work? If anything, people's pessimistic outlook on the economy keeps people from looking for work. When they see a story that 176,000 jobs were created, that encourages people to look for work.

    I think it's funny that you totally ignored (or misconstrued?) the paragraph that I quoted, thus proving my point. Thank you.


    I will repeat (from the article):

    The drop in the jobless rate was largely due to the shrinkage in the labor force count.
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,190
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    Go Beavers wrote:

    We're not in worse shape because 176,000 jobs were added. If you look at the labor force participation rate over the year, it hasn't changed much overall. For example, in October, the participation rate was higher.

    What do you mean we are encouraging people to not even bother looking for work? If anything, people's pessimistic outlook on the economy keeps people from looking for work. When they see a story that 176,000 jobs were created, that encourages people to look for work.

    I think it's funny that you totally ignored (or misconstrued?) the paragraph that I quoted, thus proving my point. Thank you.


    I will repeat (from the article):

    The drop in the jobless rate was largely due to the shrinkage in the labor force count.

    I wasn't misconstruing or ignoring, just taking it further. Over time we're going to see a decrease in the labor participation rate because of people retiring. They'll be bumps up and down in the meantime (e.g. October and November), but we've all read how the population is getting older and the strain this is/will cause on Social Security, so that's not crazy talk from me. This is and will be combined with an increase in jobs created and a decrease in the unemployment rate. This is what' been happening all year. Historically, if people have given up looking for work, they come back in large numbers when job reports are positive. This hasn't happened, which supports my position.

    What is your point again and how did I prove it? Your underlying point seems to be that there can't be good economic news as long as Obama's president.
Sign In or Register to comment.